college fees

mahamageehad

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Does this mean everyone has to pay the new registration fee irrespective of income or is it means tested?

Everyone has to pay the registration fees. Those who qualify for a grant (be it 25% or 100%) will be reimbursed this fee.

PeakOutput wrote: »

if you get a grant you dnt pay registration fees and presumably they will be abolished if fees are introduced

yes they should even if its only for the top 5% earners in the country that have to pay completely free 3rd level with the state the economy is in right now is stupid

This is ideal but sadly unrealistic. The dividing line has to come in somewhere, and chances are that it won't only be the top 5%. But the well-off should be able to pay. People like to think everyone is equal but in reality they're not! It's like the childrens allowance. People just assume they should get it for being able to reproduce. However Everyone gets this payment, from the average Joe on the dole to the ministers, taoiseach and president. Fair??

Predalien wrote: »

They never intended to announce anything about fees in the budget today, it'll be done later this month by O'keefe himself

O sugar, I had hoped that would be the last we'd hear of it til the next budget.
(Random Interesting Fact:- Paddy Powers are offering ridiculously high odds on another emergency budget this year!)

SD1990 wrote: »

The ammount of people that are relaxed about droping out because of no fees fails in comparison to the amount of people that would be FORCED to drop out if they were brought back imo..

+1. Couldn't have said it better myself. I would be one of those forced to drop out.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

So you think a good way of getting people to spend is making sure that gratuates are in debt as soon as they leave college?
Good plan.

+1. Also the idea that richer people may be allowed to pay their fees up front at a reduced price while a loan system is implemented for others is crazy. Rich people leave college happy out and get a job and start earning while lower income people are earning at a reduced rate for years with a massive debt on their heads?? And what if people have to go abroad to get a job?? Will they be chased for the money they "owe" then??

Sorry for long post!!

Piste

mahamageehad wrote: »

+1. Also the idea that richer people may be allowed to pay their fees up front at a reduced price while a loan system is implemented for others is crazy. Rich people leave college happy out and get a job and start earning while lower income people are earning at a reduced rate for years with a massive debt on their heads?? And what if people have to go abroad to get a job?? Will they be chased for the money they "owe" then??

Sorry for long post!!

I dunno, I think if richer people can pay upfront and generate immediate revenue for the state then they should be rewarded for doing so.

I'm not sure how they'd handle it if people went abroad, maybe the same way the UK and Australia do?

gcgirl

ionix5891 wrote: »

please show me a 3 bed in wexford for 170k

There was a big sign coming in to Gorey Where Amber Springs is I actually nearly drove the car in to a ditch looking at it!!

gcgirl

gcgirl wrote: »

Gorey you can buy a 3 bed house for 170,000 now! Prices have completely slashed!
I am Sorry to say this but there are some people that fly from course to course and simple do not have a clue what they wanna do Which makes it harder for people that actually want to do the course and i do feel sorry for middle income earners but not for the rich that are well able to pay for the kids 2nd level education they can pay for their 3rd level as well!!

What? Aren't you a single mother and therefore a leech on the state?

Not sure if you are, but you sure are representing in the other thread. So money for single mothers, none for people who want an education. Nice. Leech.

mikemac

gcgirl wrote: »

I am Sorry to say this but there are some people that fly from course to course and simple do not have a clue what they wanna do Which makes it harder for people that actually want to do the course and i do feel sorry for middle income earners but not for the rich that are well able to pay for the kids 2nd level education they can pay for their 3rd level as well!!

You don't need to be rich to pay for your child's 2nd level education.
Some people make sacrifices, maybe don't go on holidays for years and years.

A lot on boards expressing their anger at the "rich" without ever defining what that is.
You'll find plenty of ordinary students from ordinary families in private schools. I don't know if it's worth it or not but if they believe it is, then let them spend their money.
Maybe it's a waste of money, there's been plenty of threads on boards on it anyway.

I wouldn't judge students who leave their course as they are unhappy or unsure and tbh, you especially are in position to judge others either gcgirl.

sushisushi

Thirdfox wrote: »

the main problem is the underfunding. And we could either get it from a) increased taxation b) shifting money from other areas or c) fees. Which option is the most appealing to you?

I wish that it was as simple as that. The problem here is that none of the current options actually involve the third level sector getting *any* extra funding in total. The existing funding is going to be cut no matter what, with a choice of either:
a) a reduction in funding allocated from taxation, with the shortfall to be made up by increased numbers, foreign students and a scramble for external funding
or b) fees introduced and the taxation money taken away for use elsewhere.

No-one is talking about increasing the spend into 3rd level, just about taking it away into other areas and looking for ways to replace it. Never mind what effect it might have on people's ability to get access to education, which is as ironic as hell, as what's probably going happen is b, with a side order of increased student numbers, which is *really* going to work if it's suddenly way more expensive to go to college.

nesf

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What? Aren't you a single mother and therefore a leech on the state?

Not sure if you are, but you sure are representing in the other thread. So money for single mothers, none for people who want an education. Nice. Leech.

Banned for a week for personal insults.

gcgirl

How much does it take to send a child through 2nd level fee paying school? It varies but it is a hell of a lot of money and from where i live, not that many people i knew went to fee paying school their parents sent them to the local 2 nd levels that includes teachers & garda's Children! And on my own experience if you dont want to do a course take a time out do your research and figure out instead of pushing another person out of the course that actually wanted to do the couse but fell short of a couple of points!

mikemac wrote: »

You don't need to be rich to pay for your child's 2nd level education.
Some people make sacrifices, maybe don't go on holidays for years and years.

A lot on boards expressing their anger at the "rich" without ever defining what that is.
You'll find plenty of ordinary students from ordinary families in private schools. I don't know if it's worth it or not but if they believe it is, then let them spend their money.
Maybe it's a waste of money, there's been plenty of threads on boards on it anyway.

I wouldn't judge students who leave their course as they are unhappy or unsure and tbh, you especially are in position to judge others either gcgirl.

*shadow*

I was lucky enough to be able to spend my final year of secondary schooling in a private school, and my family are by no means wealthy, I admit the current economic climate at the time helped the sitution because if it was now I certainly wouldnt have the opportunity to go but the bottom line is, unlike many Irish families, we have never ever been on a foreign holiday, we spend our summers in Ireland and we always have done, so think about it thats like what 1000/2000e a year we're saving on holidays alone, my parents always put our education above everything else and I will be eternally greatful to them for sending me to a private school for my final year, if it wasnt for that school I would never have got the points for my top course.

I'm in college now and I work at weekends, because I work at the weekend it means I have to put extra hours in during the week to get my course work done and although that means less time for clubs, societies and socialising it is a sacrifice I am willing to make.It's called prioritising! I see loads of young people driving cars, who's paying for the car? Who's paying for the petrol? and not forgeting the costly insurance? so for those people that are spending money on a foreign holiday or a car for their teens why not invest in their education instead, Its worth a hell of a lot more.

mardybum

For me I think the re-introduction is a good thing - maybe.

It would work for me in a few ways, firstly a lot of universitys and IT's are being run like companies. They don't get enough money from the State, and so have to raise funds themselves. Often this results in lecturers, prof's etc not focusing on their 'real' job, i.e. teaching the students, but on having to publish papers, research, fundraising, raise the college's profile etc. The actual teaching/learning is vastly reduced. You can see this in places where students don't get papers back and marked for months, or they get marked by an aide instead. This isn't what you want from your education!
Fees would mean that more money is going into the college. More space for those who teach, to teach.

Also, I'm a mature student starting 3rd level in Sept, I would hope that as i qualify for a grant i would not have to pay fees. And that my meagre grant of 3,400 odd would be increased.

I agree that paying for your course would make people more careful about what they choose to do. More people might take time to work for a year or two to save for college. I think this is a great thing to do, you get a far greater idea of your own skills and strengths and a lot of the woohoo I'm 18 and able to drink and party stuff goes out the window. By the time you get to college you have a more sensible approach to what is needed to get through it.

I also think that people who think that free fees are a right have by and large grown up during the boom years. For most people who've grown up during this time every single thing in their life has re-inforced the idea that you have a right to what you want. I can see it in my younger brother and other relations. New shoes, new jeans, new playstations, takeways, everything has been available with little stress or thought. I don't believe this is healthy or true. You should have to work to get what you want, you appreciate it more and it's sweeter.

sushisushi

mardybum wrote: »

For me I think the re-introduction is a good thing - maybe.

It would work for me in a few ways, firstly a lot of universitys and IT's are being run like companies. They don't get enough money from the State, and so have to raise funds themselves. Often this results in lecturers, prof's etc not focusing on their 'real' job, i.e. teaching the students, but on having to publish papers, research, fundraising, raise the college's profile etc. The actual teaching/learning is vastly reduced. You can see this in places where students don't get papers back and marked for months, or they get marked by an aide instead. This isn't what you want from your education!
Fees would mean that more money is going into the college. More space for those who teach, to teach.

I wish that last were true, mardybum, but it's a common misconception. The 3rd level sector has already been told that fees being reintroduced would not mean any increase in money coming into the sector and the pressure on lecturers for fundraising, etc., is actually increasing, rather than decreasing over the last year.

And it's a lot better here than in the UK, where all research 'outputs' have to be quantified every five years and the funding for your entire department to survive might depend on it. It's not *quite* that bad here, at least in most places. (Although anywhere I've seen an 'aide' correcting papers, they've actually been a PhD student in the area, so it's not like they don't know anything!)

That's one aspect to the fees argument that I wish there was more clarity on - bringing fees back, of any sort, will *not* see 3rd level get any more money!

*shadow*

mardybum wrote: »

For me I think the re-introduction is a good thing - maybe.

It would work for me in a few ways, firstly a lot of universitys and IT's are being run like companies. They don't get enough money from the State, and so have to raise funds themselves. Often this results in lecturers, prof's etc not focusing on their 'real' job, i.e. teaching the students, but on having to publish papers, research, fundraising, raise the college's profile etc. The actual teaching/learning is vastly reduced. You can see this in places where students don't get papers back and marked for months, or they get marked by an aide instead. This isn't what you want from your education!
Fees would mean that more money is going into the college. More space for those who teach, to teach.

Also, I'm a mature student starting 3rd level in Sept, I would hope that as i qualify for a grant i would not have to pay fees. And that my meagre grant of 3,400 odd would be increased.

I agree that paying for your course would make people more careful about what they choose to do. More people might take time to work for a year or two to save for college. I think this is a great thing to do, you get a far greater idea of your own skills and strengths and a lot of the woohoo I'm 18 and able to drink and party stuff goes out the window. By the time you get to college you have a more sensible approach to what is needed to get through it.

I also think that people who think that free fees are a right have by and large grown up during the boom years. For most people who've grown up during this time every single thing in their life has re-inforced the idea that you have a right to what you want. I can see it in my younger brother and other relations. New shoes, new jeans, new playstations, takeways, everything has been available with little stress or thought. I don't believe this is healthy or true. You should have to work to get what you want, you appreciate it more and it's sweeter.

I do see where your comming from but the government are unlikely to increase grants..remember they just want to take money from us now.

Also you mention that people should take a couple of years out to work first, well to my knowledge people are loosing there jobs so a young person comming out of school with no degree is very unlikely to walk into a job and heres another point; fees will be much less cripling for those living in or near where it is they intend to go to college, it is the people that have to pay another 10,000 a year on accomodation and living expenses that will really be punnished and as it appears, the governmet is very unlikely to provide an accomodation grant as well, the result of the introduction of fees will create an elitist system whereby the rich will get educated the rest of us if we do go to college will spend the first half of our working life paying back those fees which will mean we will strugle to get on as well in life, unlike our rich college friends we will not be able to save and put money aside for investment ect, and it will create a whole new generation with the same problems again.

The re-introduction of college fees is not a good thing and I'm sick of people saying that all students are ungreatful and that all they do is spend there college life parting and drinking, this is NOT true and I think I speak for many of my peers when I say that. I worked hard to get to college, I still work hard and I am constatly saving up but I know if fees are introduced then that that plus my accomodation costs will be cripling, no amount of saving I am doing will cover that.

I do understand that there are a lot of people now that quit a course just because they don't like it but that has more to do with you're upbringing and the value your parents placed on money, from a young age I was always made aware of my parents financial sitution to some degree, it made me aware that money did not grow on trees and therefore when it came to college I always knew that I would stick at whatever course I decided on, dropping out was simply never an option for me regardless.

Fee introduction will only contribute to the enormous devide which is already evident in Ireland. The rich and those that live nearer the main colleges will be able to afford third level education, the less well off and those living in rural areas will have to face a future where third level education will simply no longer be an option.

K4t

*shadow* wrote: »

I do see where your comming from but the government are unlikely to increase grants..remember they just want to take money from us now.

Also you mention that people should take a couple of years out to work first, well to my knowledge people are loosing there jobs so a young person comming out of school with no degree is very unlikely to walk into a job and heres another point; fees will be much less cripling for those living in or near where it is they intend to go to college, it is the people that have to pay another 10,000 a year on accomodation and living expenses that will really be punnished and as it appears, the governmet is very unlikely to provide an accomodation grant as well, the result of the introduction of fees will create an elitist system whereby the rich will get educated the rest of us if we do go to college will spend the first half of our working life paying back those fees which will mean we will strugle to get on as well in life, unlike our rich college friends we will not be able to save and put money aside for investment ect, and it will create a whole new generation with the same problems again.

The re-introduction of college fees is not a good thing and I'm sick of people saying that all students are ungreatful and that all they do is spend there college life parting and drinking, this is NOT true and I think I speak for many of my peers when I say that. I worked hard to get to college, I still work hard and I am constatly saving up but I know if fees are introduced then that that plus my accomodation costs will be cripling, no amount of saving I am doing will cover that.

I do understand that there are a lot of people now that quit a course just because they don't like it but that has more to do with you're upbringing and the value your parents placed on money, from a young age I was always made aware of my parents financial sitution to some degree, it made me aware that money did not grow on trees and therefore when it came to college I always knew that I would stick at whatever course I decided on, dropping out was simply never an option for me regardless.

Fee introduction will only contribute to the enormous devide which is already evident in Ireland. The rich and those that live nearer the main colleges will be able to afford third level education, the less well off and those living in rural areas will have to face a future where third level education will simply no longer be an option.

+1

Not to mention the crippling taxes that graduates will have to pay once they/if they can find a job after university. University fees are the worst possible solution to the country's problems imo.

marti8

In our curent economic climate they should be fees, for those who can afford it, most definetly. And I say that as someone doing a degree by distance, which I pay for out of my own pocket (well, yes, it is a social welfare pocket....) and my spouse is in f/t 3rd level education as a mature student. Of course we would fall under the threshold for any introduction of fess were they to be introduced. I could never understand this free fees for everyone thing in the first place.

ps3man

According to rte batt o keefe isnt revealing his third level fees until after the local and mep elections, how did we ever come as a nation to ellecting such a snake to make decisons for us, if3 rd level fees come back next year as planned then im screwed, my folks are tied up enough already as it is with the pension levi and various other forms of tax without another 3000 a year, to those who will reply to this post and tell me to get a job and dont leave it to mammy and daddy to pay, i have a job which no joke i earn less than the dole with, bout seventy a week. To batt o keefe, people just dont have the money for your fees, unlike banks we cant do quantitive easing (print money)

*shadow*

marti8 wrote: »

I could never understand this free fees for everyone thing in the first place.

It was introduced so that EVERYONE would have an opportunity to peruse a higher level of education, as it stands at the moment where there are no fees, I already know of people who can't attend colleges far from home because of the crippling accommodation costs, the introduction of fees will only exacerbate this problem. Why should there be a price on our education? Is education not a right?
If they do introduce fees then the whole grant system must be reformed. We simply cannot afford to spend half of our entire working life’s paying back such fees just because the government and the banks got overexcited with the 'Tiger'

HQvhs

*shadow* wrote: »

It was introduced so that EVERYONE would have an opportunity to peruse a higher level of education, as it stands at the moment where there are no fees, I already know of people who can't attend colleges far from home because of the crippling accommodation costs, the introduction of fees will only exacerbate this problem. Why should there be a price on our education? Is education not a right?
If they do introduce fees then the whole grant system must be reformed. We simply cannot afford to spend half of our entire working life’s paying back such fees just because the government and the banks got overexcited with the 'Tiger'

A university education isn't a right. It isn't on the same level as free speech, life, etc. If you go to university chances are you'll get a job that will pay more than if you hadn't gone to university. So why not pay for that? It's not fair that every single tax payer pays for your route to a higher income. By and large it's still middle class and wealthy people's children who go to university, the children of poorer families can't afford to spend 3/4 years in university not earning income, paying registration fees, books etc.
I have no problem with a student loan or graduate tax system, I think it's the only realistic option. The only thing I have an issue with is the ministers fumbling of the entire issue, and the possibility of annual fees instead of deferred payment.

*shadow*

HQvhs wrote: »

By and large it's still middle class and wealthy people's children who go to university, the children of poorer families can't afford to spend 3/4 years in university not earning income, paying registration fees, books etc.

I stongly disagree..lower income families recieve a grant..not a great one but a grant all the same..I admit that college choice may be stongly limited to those persons in that their choice is more or less dictated by where they live and so they end up recieving their third level degree from Colleges that are closer to home and allow for commuting in and out instead of accomodtion costs being added....that grant then covers the college fees plus books and a healthy social life if desired.

If fees are introduced theses people will not have the opportunity to persue any form of third level education

Also you talk of most people going to college being from middle class..define middle class? Traditionally that was white coller jobs which would mean that I'm from a working class background, typically those from a working class backround never went to college..Im in College, my parents never had the opportunity to recieve a third level degree due to the costs..as a result they were adamant their children would. No Fees has made this posible. I went to school with people on soposed lower incomes, who said they couldnt afford to go to college..then I watched them drive into school in flashy new cars and go off on their yearly sunny holiday:mad:..both of which I never had..something that has never bothered me..a small sacrifice to make in order to attend college dont you think!!

As it stands the MAJORITY of society has the opportunity to persue some form of a third level degree....The inroduction of fees will change this and it will only be those in the Very higher socio economic bracket that will be able to afford to send their kids to school. There's seems to be so little understanding towards Irish students today all because a MINORITY Of rich kids Tainted our reputation because they are the one's that don't need the degrees, Daddy's inheritence will always be there to fall back on...However for the rest of us we realise that College and eduction is a doorway to 'Freedom', a doorway to a Future that our parents never had, it means that we will have a CHANCE to lead a future where maybe we wont have to sit up worrying all night about paying bills, it means that maybe we wont have to go around the supermarket with a calculater in one hand trying to add up the price of the cheapest food in the shop that may feed your family, It means that maybe we might be able to afford that bag of coal when we need it rather than when we can afford it..In that respect then YES Third level eduction is a Right...

Increased fees= less people going to college

If their is no hope of being able to go to college why work hard to get point in your leaving cert?

Therefore...

Increased fees=More young people looking for work in the labour market.

In the current economic climate their are NO JOBS..

SO...

Increased fees means these people will end up on the DOLE which means INCREASED COSTS For the Government

Those that are for bringing in fees either have no experience with the current third level educational system or they have money and they just won't admit it.

melekalikimaka

free fees is NOT a right... no matter how you try to word it, it was a priviale we got during the boom years, that needs to be curbed... higher education is not something everyone has a 'right' to... its this spoilt attitude that has the government bdending over backwards for the civil servents and their spunging

HQvhs

*shadow* wrote: »

In that respect then YES Third level eduction is a Right...

Increased fees= less people going to college

If their is no hope of being able to go to college why work hard to get point in your leaving cert?

Therefore...

Increased fees=More young people looking for work in the labour market.

In the current economic climate their are NO JOBS..

SO...

Increased fees means these people will end up on the DOLE which means INCREASED COSTS For the Government

Just to set the record straight, I'm talking about some kind of system of deferred payment. A graduate tax, student loan etc. I agree with you, the old system of fees was a bad one and if it were reintroduced it would be a terrible idea.

Britain and the US both have fees (And very high ones in the case of the US), and they have some of the best universities in the world. It is in these countries that real discoveries get made and that the best minds are attracted to. The universities are by and large much freer from political interference than ours are as they do not rely as much in state funding. And what I'm merely advocating is a fairer system than they have of repaying fees. Third level is not a right, that's a selfish attitude, it's a privilege. Free speech, life, hygiene - they're rights. Don't debase these with spoilt suggestions.

Those that are for bringing in fees either have no experience with the current third level educational system or they have money and they just won't admit it.

I would suggest that those who argue against fees have no experience with any third level education system. Fees are a standard feature of most good third level systems, see the UK, US, Australia as above. And secondly, it would be a system of deferred payment. I cannot emphasise that enough! You pay when you have a job and are earning money, having poor parents will make it harder than someone with rich parents, yes, but not impossible. Third of all, what's with this reverse snobbery? I don't have 'money', my parents both work in stable jobs, I go to a non fee paying school and they wouldn't pay for my fees. When they went to college they had to pay fees, and you know what they did? Part-time jobs over summer. And you know, if it comes down to it I don't see that being such a bad thing. Less drinking money though for poor college students...

af_thefragile

melekalikimaka wrote: »

free fees is NOT a right... no matter how you try to word it, it was a priviale we got during the boom years, that needs to be curbed... higher education is not something everyone has a 'right' to... its this spoilt attitude that has the government bdending over backwards for the civil servents and their spunging

Yes and no.

I do believe free fees is not a right. Its also not very good to the economy. Privatisation of institutions is the way forwards towards a proper free market progress in development of better educational systems and better skilled workforce through fair competition.
You can see clear evidence for this in the fact that on average students in private schools always get better grades than the ones in free public schools!

At the same time i believe higher education is something everyone not just has a right but a duty towards. Only the educated and skilled people are the ones who drive the state forward and this is exactly what we're lacking lately. We don't have many highly educated professionals. Instead most are just resorting to low skilled jobs like working in stores and such. Which is just a downward spiral. Less educated professionals = Poorer economy = less high skilled jobs = unemployment = poorer economy = lesser educated professionals and it goes on.

I said it before. Low taxes + reduced spending + higher revenue = better state.
The government should stay out of businesses cuz it never does any good by interfering with a proper free market and screwing up the whole free market economy system. The reason to this current economic crisis.

Hence government stays out of educational institutions, takes less of people and institutions money through lower taxes. Institutions and people have enough money so that the university can set up a affordable fees that the average middle class can afford easily (instead of wasting their money on things they don't need like they're doing now days!). There's good competition between the different institutions. People are wise and spend their money on the best institution. The lousy ones die away or are forced to work harder to get on par with the best ones. Its a constant steady upward cycle of progress!!
Better institutions can afford better resources to train its members upto the highest cutting edge standards.

So instead of letting the government leech more of our hard earned money in taxes and waste it away inefficiently, we need to tell the government to step away from out tax money and leave the economy in the hands of the people who run it. The businesses and the consumers (general population).
Socialism will not solve this current crisis (infact will only make this bubble bigger so when it bursts, it does it in ever so magnificent manner!) and so people need to just suck it up, save up the money they waste on things they don't need and use it on something more useful like their college fees!!

*shadow*

HQvhs wrote: »

When they went to college they had to pay fees, and you know what they did? Part-time jobs over summer. And you know, if it comes down to it I don't see that being such a bad thing. Less drinking money though for poor college students...

Firstly only the elite go to Unniversity in Britian

Secondly I have a part time job and i dont go out during the week at college, I don't spend my money on drink or socialising and I'm still struggling.

Thirdly thats great your parents still managed to afford Unniversity, but not everyone with a part time job was able to do that then so you shouldnt just assume that. and what ever way you say it Fee introduction will effect the numbers attending college..Sorry I wont be around when the figures come out to say 'I told you so', but I dont really feel like sticking around for long in a country that stabs its people in the back.

Fourthly..Ok if you want me to say it, -->

Education is not a RIGHT, in the curent economic climate it is a NECESSITY

HQvhs

*shadow* wrote: »

Firstly only the elite go to Unniversity in Britian

Back that up please. Who are the "elite"?

Secondly I have a part time job and i dont go out during the week at college, I don't spend my money on drink or socialising and I'm still struggling.

And that is why out system isn't working. "free" third level isn't free. There are accommodation costs, books, registration fees and loads more. Poorer people still aren't attending college in great numbers because of these. A system of deferred payment and scrapping the registration fee, along with decent book and accommodation grants would do more to increase numbers in third level than our present "free" system.

Thirdly thats great your parents still managed to afford Unniversity, but not everyone with a part time job was able to do that then so you shouldnt just assume that. and what ever way you say it Fee introduction will effect the numbers attending college..Sorry I wont be around when the figures come out to say 'I told you so', but I dont really feel like sticking around for long in a country that stabs its people in the back.

You're right, it was a bit of a sweeping statement on my part. It was merely meant to demonstrate that people from modest backgrounds could indeed attend third level even when they had to pay fees on an annual basis.
If it's implemented badly, I'm sure it will affect college numbers adversely. But the present system is unsustainable and counter-productive. An intelligently implemented system of deferred payment - i.e. loans or a graduate tax - is much better than what we have now.

Fourthly..Ok if you want me to say it, -->

Education is not a RIGHT, in the current economic climate it is a NECESSITY

Damn right it is! And a well-funded and independent third level system is an absolute necessity, but we currently don't have that. We have too many underfunded, mediocre colleges, IT's and universities.
Also, there are many people unsuited to secondary school, let alone university! People whose talents lie in other non-academic areas. Not everyone needs to, or should, go to university. Yet nowadays you have many 18 year old's being told to waste years of their lives doing mediocre degrees instead of following their real strengths, be it practical, sports, art whatever.
In this current economic climate "free" college isn't beneficial. A well-funded and world class university system is.
(And I don't have any confidence that FF will bring it about)

ninty9er

*shadow* wrote: »

Fourthly..Ok if you want me to say it, -->

Education is not a RIGHT, in the curent economic climate it is a NECESSITY

So are clean water and shelter....but the majority of the planet's population pay for them, and it could be argued quite convincingly that both of them are much more fundamental than a 3rd level education.

I *like* the idea of being *able* to fund 3rd level as a public service, but realistically it'll be 15-20 years before we can fuly adjust our tax system to put such a system in place.

Also as I may have already said, the whole problem stems from the incorrect implementation of the whole system in 1996.